Passerby shoots, kills motorist assaulting deputy after traffic stop

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker
I sure hope come January, when Trump is sworn in, he does something for the good guy's side. Like un-neutering the Police so that they can take care
of these criminals. This cannot continue like this, unless this is the plan. Glad the armed citizen was there to stop the attack.

Defend it all you like, he shot a man in cold blood when for all we know he could have at least first tried to resolve the issue without putting three
bullets in him.

How did he shoot a man in cold blood? Pretty sure this guy's blood was pretty hot and pumping fast. From the pic he looks like a pretty decent sized
guy and was pummeling a police officer. Yet he deserves respect?

And he did try to resolve it. He asked the guy to stop and told him he would shoot. I guess next you'll say he was deaf and couldn't hear
too?

I wasn't expected to win friends and influence people by suggesting that shooting someone three times with (allegedly) no attempt to even push him
away from the police man wasn't heroic. I will even say that it may have been the only option (but three times? Really?), but does that make him a
hero?

It doesn't say anywhere it was three times in quick succession. I imagine it was, but he may have shot 3 shots over several seconds.

Just so you know, there is something called the 30 foot or 35 foot rule, depending on who is training you. The idea is that someone who is a distance
of 35 feet or less from you, can probably run at you and either stab you or atleast be able to put their hands on you, before you can react - and this
is for trained professionals.

So possibly the officer was caught off guard and didn't have time to react before the conflict took place, maybe the officer attempted to draw but the
suspect was able to grab the gun or knock it lose first, maybe he got hit really hard and was confused about how to properly defend himself.

It is also a fact, 98%, that if you are in arms length of someone they can grab your weapon, that you have pointed straight at them, before you can
pull the trigger.

Life isn't a movie, cops don't have special powers and their brains function just like a normal humans, it takes time to notice something and then
react to it, and those seconds are what gets you killed, that's why cops are so on edge, they know a smile might just be a the best way to hide a
weapon.

Police sign up for a dangerous job and they know that. Why would it have anything to do with a police officer afraid to use force? A criminal attacked
a police officer, there was a fight, a good samaritan intervened.

Are you using this to excuse bad police officers that commit murder and are punished?

I am not following your personal comments on the incident. They seem very wrong.

Police sign up for a dangerous job and they know that. Why would it have anything to do with a police officer afraid to use force? A criminal attacked
a police officer, there was a fight, a good samaritan intervened.

Are you using this to excuse bad police officers that commit murder and are punished?

I am not following your personal comments on the incident. They seem very wrong.

In case you haven't been paying attention to news lately, it could quite possibly have everything to do with the cop being afraid to use force.

Each and every time a cop shoots a man, and most especially a minority, there is a massive outcry that the officer is crooked, racist, joined the
force with an agenda, and so on ad nauseum.

It doesn't matter how blatant the assault on the officer was, whether or not the assailant was armed or if the assailant has a lengthy criminal
record, the cop is the one scrutinized.

Between that and the recent assassinations of police officers, it's no wonder they are edgy, and afraid to take action when needed.

Any day, anytime, under similar circumstances...I will do the same thing. My daily carry firearm is a 45 acp. Some call higher caliber weapons "hand
cannons", and thats the reason I do.

If I had to use it, it would be within 10-20'...and I'd want it to count and not have to hit any target with more than 2-3 rounds. But understand
this....

I wouldnt hesitate...but I hope in my lifetime...I never have to...ever. But this guy saved a life. Great. We're not Joe "Sheriff"...but are prepared
to defend you, your kids, family and anyone else facing certain or severe injury or death.

If any one situation explains the reason for concealed and licensed carry...this one was it.

This whole thing happened after a car chase, that was the scene.
Warning shots have a much better chance of not killing the person you're confronting, firing in the air does not produce a deadly falling projectile
as the myth predicts.

I did read it, from your article, after the introduction:

a spokesperson for the council of Police Chiefs, is quoted by the newspaper as saying: “in the past we were reluctant with violence.
Nowadays we say: be quicker in drawing your gun and show it as a menace, fire a warning shot if necessary... If that does not produce the necessary
effect, you [may] shoot at the legs if needs be.”

Where does this oppose what I was trying to convey ?

Warning shots generally aren't supposed to be aimed at the person you're trying to "warn" so yes, they have a lesser chance of hitting that person. My
point is that the round will still land somewhere, which puts everybody else at risk because now instead of shooting at a person, you've let a round
off to land wherever it lands.

Which you would have understood if you had a modicum of firearms knowledge.

I'm glad you finally got around to reading the article, even if you continue to miss the point that I made by posting it: your cops are being told to
be more aggressive. Literally nothing else you've posted about it has any bearing on the situation.

The car chase doesn't have anything to do with the shooting. The cop getting his ass kicked has everything to do with the shooting. Ergo, the car
chase is not germane to the discussion of the shooting.

I know it's a common tactic to take the argument all over the map to avoid the actual subject of lethal force being justified, but it's an old, tired
shtick.

Instead of the passer by killing the person, why do you think he didn't try to physically restrain him? Don't you think that would have been doing the
right thing?

And risk having his own arse beat too? SOmetimes the right thing to do is the easiest and shooting the jerk was the right call. I am weak muscular
speaking. I coudnt restrain a girl much less a man. Its why I dont fight fair if i have to.

Instead of the passer by killing the person, why do you think he didn't try to physically restrain him? Don't you think that would have been doing the
right thing?

And risk having his own arse beat too? SOmetimes the right thing to do is the easiest and shooting the jerk was the right call. I am weak muscular
speaking. I coudnt restrain a girl much less a man. Its why I dont fight fair if i have to.

Oh, I know exactly what you mean, and when you say it could have been the right call I completely agree with you and never once have I suggested
otherwise. It was the term 'hero' that I questioned in this circumstance with the facts at hand, I think I know exactly why that's getting me flack
from some in this thread.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.